The Greens must stand in the Copeland by-election

I’ve been a somewhat sceptical supporter of a progressive alliance, but the Greens simply must stand in Copeland. It would be to the detriment of both us and the left, in general, to continue to prop up a Jeremy Corbyn leadership that should be subject to extreme scrutiny.

For a party in government to win a mid-term by-election from the opposition is essentially unheard of in modern politics; a defeat for Labour in Copeland should beg serious questions over Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour party. Keeping this in mind, it would be bad for the left as a whole were the Greens to simply prop up Corbyn by standing aside and endorsing Labour while being offered nothing in return.

Even before any of this, the actions of the Lib Dems should be taken into account. If the Lib Dems do not stand down, there is no progressive alliance. If the Lib Dems stand, as Labour did in Richmond, then we do not have a progressive alliance. Instead, we have the Green Party transitioning from a political party to a pressure group. I broadly supported the ‘progressive alliance’ in Richmond. The Lib Dems have appeared far more open to the idea in general than Labour, and ridding parliament of a despicable character like Zac Goldsmith was hard to resist. But in a scenario where there is no real gain for us (Labour’s current line on immigration and Brexit is little better than the Tories and 1 by-election will make little difference to the long-term economic and environmental pictures), and where no formal agreement involving Labour concessions is likely to be reached, we must stand.

Even if the Lib Dems do stand down, it must be a clear and publicly announced alliance. Us quietly standing aside does nothing for us. Indeed, us standing down for the third by-election in a row merely leaves hard working Green activists wondering why we bother. And to be clear, there is still no mandate for a progressive alliance from within the Green Party; it is not the role of the leader to decide on policy. Even if the local party does consent to stepping down, one must question what pressure they will be coming under from above, and, due in no small part to Caroline Lucas’s personal popularity, from other segments within the party too? A decision reached at gunpoint is not a legitimate exercise of internal democracy, indeed it is fundamentally no different to a diktat from above.

Assuming the Lib Dems did stand down, and an alliance was planned as something that would be publicly announced, there are still many reservations to be answered. Firstly, there is the whole Nuclear elephant in the room. Demographically, the Labour party will need to select a candidate who is pro-nuclear. Obviously, this is fundamentally against the values and aims of the Green Party (and the views of a good many Lib Dems). Simply put, there have to be red-lines in a progressive alliance, and supporting a pro-nuclear candidate has to be one of them. Further, we have to consider our message on Europe. Copeland, as a constituency, voted to leave; and Ukip achieved over 15% of the vote there in 2015. Therefore, Labour will almost certainly have to select a pro-Brexit candidate or at least someone open to a hard Brexit. This is likely to mean it will be someone extolling all the immigration views implied by that stance. This is not a candidate the Green party I joined should be supporting. And I among many others may have serious reconsiderations regarding our allegiances if we do endorse a candidate of this nature.

Finally, we have to ask the question of whether or not working with the Labour party is something we want to engage in? I’m going to go out on a limb here, the Conservatives will win the 2020 general election whether we have a progressive alliance or not. An alliance with Labour has virtually no short-term benefit for the Green party. Indeed, with the exception of the Isle of Wight, the majority of the seats we are looking to compete in are held by Labour; you have to ask, where is the benefit? All we will do is delay or possibly curtail our own growth, for something that is extremely unlikely to work.

That being said, there is another progressive alliance that could work. Richmond park has shown, that Greens and Lib Dems can work together. It was far from perfect, and we have so much work to do on securing a working relationship for the occasions when such a scenario unfolds. However, the Greens standing down in Richmond worked and sent a message to the government. All while putting an anti-Brexit, pro-electoral reform candidate in parliament. There is scope for an alliance, an alliance for democracy. An alliance between Greens and Lib Dems, with the sole aim of subverting the two-party system. And yes, that includes actively trying to take seats from Labour. Working with the Lib Dems offers us a chance in seats like Bristol West, though I am sure that seat will be subject to arguments that they are better placed to win it.

The point is, a progressive alliance has to be progressive in both senses of the word. It has to involve supporting candidates we can stomach and it has to advance our status and hopes for the future. At this moment in time, alliance with the Labour party does neither. They peddle the same xenophobic narratives as the Tories, increasingly joining in and legitimising the vile immigration rhetoric; and they continue to understate the threat Brexit poses to living standards in this country. Meanwhile, they have no real chance in 2020, even with our support. They would also expect us to stand down in some of our strongest seats, curtailing our growth as a party and thus limiting our leverage to demand change. Meanwhile, the Lib Dems are organised, committed, and taking steps to tackle May’s disgusting rhetoric. We may not agree on every issue. Indeed, we are streets apart economically, but we agree on the issues upon which the next election will be fought, and we can help each other to grow.

13 Comments Already

Alex, I stand corrected as now there is obviously a considerable debate going on. I still don’t think there is any cause for calling for a progressive alliance in respect of this particular by-election.

What we need to do when we stand in this election is find a way of reaching out to current UKIP voters who might be persuaded by green politics if we can make it relevant to them, because it is relevant everywhere. That Sellafield plant cannot last forever and renewable energy development is a good way of reinvigorating rural/semi-urban communities which have lost many of their traditional industries.

A key aim of progressive alliance strategy has to be electoral reform, along with removing the Tories at the next election if possible. Labour are generally resistant, with exceptions, to electoral reform. Therefore, far from standing down to allow a pro-nuke, anti-immigration, Labour tribalist to win (and even that is not certain) and continue to enable the illusions of both tribalist (and sometimes closet Leninist) Corbynites and Blairites, it might be best if a Green stood, and even better if Labour loses by a margin less than the Green vote. I am afraid we are in a position now of needing to teach the deluded a lesson, and it is not going to be pretty or comfortable. The idea that the Tory majority can be eliminated short of a general election also seems delusional in the current climate of the right wing running amok.

The Greens also have something to say on extra-parliamentary politics, our candidates should be making common cause with the anti-fracking movement who are preparing for a year where direct action becomes more and more important,and also supporting other actions that fight Tory/UKIP policy now, rather than in 2020.

I think the Green’s should stand everywhere. We desperately need alternative visions that can reach the disaffected. We won’t achieve this by letting ‘progressive’ labour or lib dems offer more the same. Good social policy is not enough. We need visions for a new economic system not tweeks to the old ways. Only the Greens have this to offer. And I think only the Greens can find a way to listen to those who are protesting at the same old same old. Whilst I support the idea that Greens could step back when others adopt Green policies, I see far too little of this in Labour or Lib Dem policy to even raise the question. Let’s give the electorate a real choice and lets fight for the votes of those who want a different way.

I agree entirely about the need for a new economic system. The question is how to get there.

Of course the Green Party have to work through many channels, not just elections. But when it comes to elections, the FPTP system is designed to deny the electorate a real choice, but rather to impose a two-party system.

Despite this, the Greens _do_ have a choice. They can choose to stand for election _symbolically_, as in 2015, and seek to maximise the Green vote regardless of how it might influence the election’s actual result (i.e. Tory, Labour or hung parliament, the three possible outcomes).

Or, alternatively, they can choose to stand _strategically_, which means making pre-electoral pacts in certain seats and standing down in others. Which could potentially increase their leverage dramatically while sacrificing a small amount of symbolic influence.

I’m arguing for the strategic approach, because I think it increases the Green Party’s actual influence on politics. (But I agree with Alex’s arguments, and those of Paul above, that the Copeland by-election isn’t one where the Greens should stand down in favour of Labour.)

Well said. It’s true that the Lib Dems, in the present climate, seem to be far more natural allies to the Greens than Labour, as you’ve clearly shown to be true in the case of the Copeland by-election.

But it’s also true that under FPTP, the Green Party’s biggest leverage may be the power to stand candidates or not in specific seats, and if not, to endorse and campaign for either independents or other parties.

Hypothetically a Green-LibDem alliance in 2015 could have taken the following seats:

So in fact — and rather unexpectedly — in 2015 the Tories would have been hurt far more than Labour by a Green/LD strategic alliance. (Need I add that if five seats swung from Tory to LibDem/Green today, it would reduce the government’s majority to zero?)

Bristol West — despite the possible Lib Dem arguments — is clearly the Greens’ primary target after Brighton, and a necessary minimum quid-pro-quo in any strategic alliance with the LibDems.

Of course, there are also rewards to be had for strategically standing down in Labour/Tory marginals — assuming Greens agree that Labour are the lesser evil — even without any overt concessions from Labour.

In the 2015 election, the following seats would have gone Labour instead of Tory if (a big “if”, admittedly) all the Green votes had instead gone to Labour:

As for Scotland, in 2015 the Tories won their sole Scottish seat (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) with a majority of 798 votes over the SNP, while the Greens got 839 votes.

It’s easy to be wise with hindsight, but I think the numbers speak for themselves: in 2015, a Green strategy of standing down in Tory/Labour marginals could have changed the outcome of the election, and thus history. Likewise, a strategic alliance with the LibDems could well have changed the result in a handful of seats, mainly to the detriment of the Tories, and one or two of those would perforce have been Green. In either or both cases, the Greens would have achieved a much more favourable result than what happened in reality.

If I were an active member of the party I’d be inclined to introduce a motion to Conference recognising this fact and creating a mechanism for the national party to coordinate such targeted, strategic alliances rather than leaving it entirely up to the local party(ies).

Allow me to correct you in one respect: the Greens stood down in Richmond, whereas in Sleaford & North Hykeham they decided to back an independent candidate. That may be a fine distinction, but it matters. Decisions in both by-elections were made for very different reasons and with different aims in mind. Secondly, as far as I know there has been no suggestion that the Greens should stand down in Copeland. We should be wary of kicking off debates where there are none to be had.

Thank you for the correction. Though I would argue, in many respects perception is stronger than reality. Regardless of what actually happened, Sleaford is perceived by the electorate, and indeed by many Green members unaware of local events, as another seat where progressive alliance was deployed. (I was aware that the circumstances were very different from Richmond park)

To offer a correction back, there has been talk of Greens standing down in Copeland. Indeed, progressive alliance has appeared as the presumed course of action in many Green circles. There has also been a good deal of Labour goading regarding how it would look if we did stand a candidate here after failing to stand one in Richmond. Also, opening a debate within the party regarding a potential alliance with the Lib Dems is precisely my intention.

In terms of growth are we not better appealing to half a million Corbyn supporters than a few thousand Liberals, who’s history comes from right of Labour and very openly talk about another ConDem coalition. I’d rather not go for this sub-alliance, it has to be all the left parties.

I quite agree. I want to see how Labour do when tested by the reality of the situation they are in: a weak stance on immigration and seemingly wanting to please the so called ‘traditional’ Labour voter and the middle class left leaner. Labour need coherent and distinct policies, something they have lacked since well before Corbyn and cannot agree on now. This illustrates why FPTP is not fit for purpose. Can there be a Labour for the North and another for larger cities with different policies? Nah. This by-election might spell out exactly why Labour need an electoral pact more than any other party.